They have led us to the brink of financial ruin, government handbooks, huge unemployment, weakened military, coddling terror. People who vote Demcratic must be either Democrats: naive, stupid, insane or evil. there is no other explanation.

Monday, September 2, 2013

Israeli dismayed by Obama, his gross incompetence

Israel dismayed by Obama, his gross incompetence

Israeli
leaders largely held their tongues after President Obama announced
Saturday that he would seek congressional approval before striking
Syria.
But privately, as David Horovitz reports at Times of Israel,
Israeli leaders are stunned and deeply worried that Obama's decision
to put off action in Syria means no future attack in Iran.

the
president has set a precedent, in seeking an authorization from
Congress that he had no legal requirement to seek — and that Congress
was not loudly demanding — that may complicate, delay or even rule out
credible action to thwart a challenge that dwarfs Assad’s chemical
weapons capability: Iran’s drive to nuclear weapons.
At the very least, Obama has given Assad more time to ensure that any
eventual strike causes a minimum of damage, and to claim initial victory
in facing down the United States. At the very least, too, Obama has led
the Iranians to believe that presidential promises to prevent them
attaining nuclear weapons need not necessarily be taken at face value.

Horovitz concludes that Israeli
leaders hope that Barack Obama wakes up and remembers that America is
the most powerful military force in the world and has acted out of moral
duty to prevent carnage in the world before.
But that maybe asking too much of a president who looks to Europe, and not America's great traditions, for his guidance.

On the lead-up to a likely strike against Syria by the United States, there are some things most of us can agree on.

One is that Bashar al-Assad is a malevolent figure. Two, a de minimis
strike–one that is mostly symbolic and does nothing to alter the course
of the war–is worse ...than doing nothing. And three, President Obama has handled the Syrian situation with staggering incompetence.

The list of mistakes by Mr. Obama includes, but is by no means limited
to, declaring two years ago that Assad must go (and doing nothing to
achieve that end); declaring one year ago that if Syria used chemical
weapons it would be crossing a “red line” that would constitute a “game
changer” (Assad crossed the “red line,” for months nothing happened, and
whatever Obama does, he’s made it clear it will not constitute a “game
changer”); signaling to our enemies, in advance, the details of our
expected operation–thereby making a strike, if it occurs, the most
telegraphed and reluctant military action in American history; doing a
miserable job building a coalition to support a military strike (Obama’s
“coalition of the willing” might include all of two nations); doing a
miserable job building support among the American people (they are
decidedly unenthusiastic about a military intervention in Syria); and
signaling he was going to bypass congressional authorization for
military use of force before reversing course and declaring on Saturday
that he would seek authorization–but only after Congress returns from
its summer recess (thereby sending the message to Congress, the American
public, and the world that there’s no real urgency to a strike, despite
the secretary of state saying that what Syria has done is “morally
obscene”). This is Keystone Cops material.

That said, where
there is a real difference of opinion, including among conservatives, is
whether an effective show of force that would alter the balance of
power in Syria would be worthwhile.

Some military analysts, like
(retired) General Jack Keane, believe the more moderate and secular
rebel forces (like the Free Syrian Army) are in fairly strong shape and,
if given the training and arms they need, could emerge as a powerful
force in a post-Assad Syria. Others, like Colonel Ralph Peters, believe
the rebel forces that are strongest in Syria right now and most likely
to emerge as dominant in a post-Assad Syria are al-Qaeda affiliates like
Jabhat al-Nusra. I will admit it’s unclear to me–and I suspect fairly
unclear to almost everyone else–what would happen if Assad left the
scene. Which makes knowing what to do, and what to counsel, difficult.

So what is the best outcome we can reasonable hope for? What is the
worst outcome we should be most prepared for? What are the odds of each
one happening? How likely, and in what ways, will Syria retaliate? How
reliable is the FSA? Is Jabhat al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate)
“generally acknowledged to be the most effective force fighting
al-Assad,” in the words of CNN’s Peter Bergen? If the (relatively)
moderate rebels did receive the aid they need, what are their chances of
success? And what would success look like? Taking control of Syria
(which is hardly likely)? Taking control of parts of Syria?
Participating in a coalition government? Comprised of whom?

These are just some of the difficult, and largely unknowable, questions one has to ask prior to endorsing a military strike.

There
would be a significant cost to doing nothing in Syria. There could be
significant benefits if we act militarily (including delivering a
damaging blow to Syria’s sponsor states, Iran and Russia, as well as to
Hezbollah). And it’s also possible that things could be worse–from the
standpoint of America, Israel and the region–if Assad is attacked and/or
overthrown and jihadists emerge in a dominant position. “The hard truth
is that the fires in Syria will blaze for some time to come,” according
to Ambassador Ryan Crocker. “Like a major forest fire, the most we can
do is hope to contain it.”

In all of this I’m reminded of what Henry Kissinger wrote in his memoir White House Years:

Statesmanship requires above all a sense of nuance and proportion, the
ability to perceive the essential among a mass of apparent facts, and an
intuition as to which of many equally plausible hypotheses about the
future is likely to prove true.

Barack Obama has no such
perception and intuition; he has proved to be singularly inept at such
presidential decision-making. But we cannot unwind what has happened. We
are where we are. Syria is a nation that has been ripped apart. The
window for a useful American intervention may have closed. And even if
it hasn’t, it would require a strategic thinker and statesman of
remarkable skill to deal with a dozen moving parts, all which need to be
carefully calibrated, in order to help Syria heal; in order for a
stable, non-sectarian and non-virulent regime to emerge.

It’s
much clearer to me what we shouldn’t do than what we now should do. I
suppose that’s sometimes where we find ourselves living in this most
untidy world. And when it comes to predicting the course of events and
anticipating various contingencies, especially in the Middle East,
modesty is probably more appropriate than certitude